Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
See that's where sacrificing "optimal" for "role-playing reasons" can get out of hand.... that's what I was trying to contrast with a reasonable sacrifice (going from 1d8 to 1d6, taking a "not the best" race for a class etc).
How much do your trust the advice of others?
See that's where sacrificing "optimal" for "role-playing reasons" can get out of hand.... that's what I was trying to contrast with a reasonable sacrifice (going from 1d8 to 1d6, taking a "not the best" race for a class etc).
Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
I may have a potential new player. He doesn't have a PHB yet, but he knows about the classes. He want so play a monk who's temple was destroyed while he was away - he doesn't know whom did it, or why. No clue about how to build his character or even what subclass...
It doesn't matter - it's the ideas, the engagement that does
I sometimes find charop threads fun, sometimes interesting, sometimrs sad.
The key with info defining a position is to always put it in context because the context may be different from your situation and need.
Much "white room" number crunching can be terribly flawed if it ignores many common in game setting elements and needs to be viewed as at best a piece of the puzzle.
It reminds me sometimes of an MMO thread where a player was baffled cuz he took a "meta build" from an onlibe expert but kept getting killed off even though playing a normally highly survivable class.
Key was the meta-build was for optimized group play and assumed but did not state "there is a healer curing me and a tank drawing most fire" while this player was running solo.
Context is key.
I always try to explain to new players and show in game that "power" is the intersection of capability and need. It does not matter as much that you do 3 extra dpr at 300' than it does that in many other circumstances you have problems because of how much you gave up.
Barring the edge cases, one is usually better off looking at the campaign and scenes and challenges for guidance than generic internet analysis because every campaign is very different.
So, i guess one of the major factors in how much i "trust" online positions is how much its assumptions (context) line up with the campaign we are in.
The key with info defining a position is to always put it in context because the context may be different from your situation and need.
Much "white room" number crunching can be terribly flawed if it ignores many common in game setting elements and needs to be viewed as at best a piece of the puzzle.
It reminds me sometimes of an MMO thread where a player was baffled cuz he took a "meta build" from an onlibe expert but kept getting killed off even though playing a normally highly survivable class.
Key was the meta-build was for optimized group play and assumed but did not state "there is a healer curing me and a tank drawing most fire" while this player was running solo.
Context is key.
I always try to explain to new players and show in game that "power" is the intersection of capability and need. It does not matter as much that you do 3 extra dpr at 300' than it does that in many other circumstances you have problems because of how much you gave up.
Barring the edge cases, one is usually better off looking at the campaign and scenes and challenges for guidance than generic internet analysis because every campaign is very different.
So, i guess one of the major factors in how much i "trust" online positions is how much its assumptions (context) line up with the campaign we are in.
Was thinking on the OP's question a little more after my game tonight. Something kinda funny happened.
The previous session, the rogue was on fire. Never missed an attack, including several nat 20s, passed every skill check, and so on. This session, she got, like, all the fails. She lamented her poor luck, but there was nary a mention of her amazing luck the previous session.
And that's kinda important. See, char-op takes the long view of the game, but how effective the character feels only really emerges through play, and much of that gets forgotten between sessions. In addition, given the swinginess of the 20-sided die and the small margins by which char-op defines optimal choices, it's hardly a rare event for non-optimized characters to outperform their optimized counterparts.
I do give char-op very strong consideration when creating a new character, but I'm not too worried about taking cookie-cutter builds. [MENTION=54690]outsider[/MENTION] mentioned "sub optimal choice budgets." I like that, and feel like it matches my approach, too.
The previous session, the rogue was on fire. Never missed an attack, including several nat 20s, passed every skill check, and so on. This session, she got, like, all the fails. She lamented her poor luck, but there was nary a mention of her amazing luck the previous session.
And that's kinda important. See, char-op takes the long view of the game, but how effective the character feels only really emerges through play, and much of that gets forgotten between sessions. In addition, given the swinginess of the 20-sided die and the small margins by which char-op defines optimal choices, it's hardly a rare event for non-optimized characters to outperform their optimized counterparts.
I do give char-op very strong consideration when creating a new character, but I'm not too worried about taking cookie-cutter builds. [MENTION=54690]outsider[/MENTION] mentioned "sub optimal choice budgets." I like that, and feel like it matches my approach, too.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Discussion about how to optimise characters is fine and fun, as an intellectual exercise.
However, saying "you must always optimise your character", "the game should be balanced around optimised characters" or "never choose this, it's sub-optimal" is always bad advice and should be ignored.
However, saying "you must always optimise your character", "the game should be balanced around optimised characters" or "never choose this, it's sub-optimal" is always bad advice and should be ignored.
Oofta
Legend
As others have said, the numerical advantage of "optimal" builds gets a little overblown at times. I don't really care if build A does 5.23 points more damage per hit over build B at 20th level since that's a tiny fraction of the PC's adventuring career. If you and your group are having fun with your character, it's the right build.
In addition, there are so many different DM and play styles that I don't think there will ever be vanilla "best" builds. Does your DM set up a lot of scenarios set in dark alleys and dimly lit warehouses where the correctly built rogue can regularly hide and get advantage? That's great until you have a wood elf that's optimized for dark canyons and dimly lit forest. That warlock does wonderful things as long as they get enough rests? Fine, until the DM has 7-10 fights with 1-2 short rests. And so on and so forth. Optimized builds are situational.
In addition, the skill of the player and the team can make a huge difference as well. Certain people just don't implement optimal tactics. I had a player who always focused on fire based spells, even when the campaign was focused on fighting an ancient red dragon and it's allies. Other people seem to be able to make builds that shouldn't work into characters that are either incredibly effective on their own merit or are amazing support characters. It's not always about who gets the spotlight, sometimes it's about the guy that makes sure the spotlight gets pointed in the right direction.
So I don't pay much attention to the optimization threads. Sure, I glance at them now and then because I've had a few players that will abuse the system and try to bend the rules to the breaking point and I want a heads up before they try it so we can work out a compromise that will be fun for everyone. But me? I'm thinking my next character may be a dwarven monk, or a half-orc wizard or ... I don't know. Depends on what fits the story.
In addition, there are so many different DM and play styles that I don't think there will ever be vanilla "best" builds. Does your DM set up a lot of scenarios set in dark alleys and dimly lit warehouses where the correctly built rogue can regularly hide and get advantage? That's great until you have a wood elf that's optimized for dark canyons and dimly lit forest. That warlock does wonderful things as long as they get enough rests? Fine, until the DM has 7-10 fights with 1-2 short rests. And so on and so forth. Optimized builds are situational.
In addition, the skill of the player and the team can make a huge difference as well. Certain people just don't implement optimal tactics. I had a player who always focused on fire based spells, even when the campaign was focused on fighting an ancient red dragon and it's allies. Other people seem to be able to make builds that shouldn't work into characters that are either incredibly effective on their own merit or are amazing support characters. It's not always about who gets the spotlight, sometimes it's about the guy that makes sure the spotlight gets pointed in the right direction.
So I don't pay much attention to the optimization threads. Sure, I glance at them now and then because I've had a few players that will abuse the system and try to bend the rules to the breaking point and I want a heads up before they try it so we can work out a compromise that will be fun for everyone. But me? I'm thinking my next character may be a dwarven monk, or a half-orc wizard or ... I don't know. Depends on what fits the story.
snickersnax
Explorer
I see your inner optimizer shining through [MENTION=6689161]Warpiglet[/MENTION]...You've already recognizing how important strength is to grappling, and you didn't "fall into the trap" of trying to grapple with dexterity even though you've picked a finesse weapon for damage. Very clever.
Warpiglet
Adventurer
I see your inner optimizer shining through @Warpiglet...You've already recognizing how important strength is to grappling, and you didn't "fall into the trap" of trying to grapple with dexterity even though you've picked a finesse weapon for damage. Very clever.
Haha! You caught me!
I walk a middle path and as someone else said make a few suboptimal choices but personally not enough to being ineffectual. I think that sucks as much as cheese.
But to tell someone not to play a halfling fighter or half orc wizard or use a shortsword in place of rapier? That ain't a problem.
or in he case you mention...strength as primary for rogue is less common. Dwarf rogue is less common. Shortsword instead of rapier less common. Focus on grappling less common for rogue. Any ONE of these might get the idea rejected by some...and that would be a shame. I like the idea of a hard boiled sardonic dwarf who is good with traps and locks (he was a locksmith by trade). It is far from optimal on many counts but I don't think it matters!
Last edited:
aco175
Legend
I find myself going back and forth a bit right now. I try not to optimize just to get the best DPR or AC or to hit. I like to play halfling rogues and tend to go with a dagger over a shortsword, never a rapier. This may be 'wrong' but I like the ability to throw and stab with the dagger. Recently at a convention a DM was telling me that most rogues go with 2-weapon fighting so if you miss with the first attack, you can off hand and still do backstab damage, even if you do not get dex modifier.
Now, I find myself thinking about the concept of 2-dagger rogue. I'm not sure if it is to min-max or I like the concept having thought about 2-weapon fighting more. I'm not even sure how much it will come up since I tend to use my bonus action to disengage with cunning action instead of being able to attack.
Now, I find myself thinking about the concept of 2-dagger rogue. I'm not sure if it is to min-max or I like the concept having thought about 2-weapon fighting more. I'm not even sure how much it will come up since I tend to use my bonus action to disengage with cunning action instead of being able to attack.
Similar Threads
